System Center Configuration Manager Feedback

Suggestion box powered by UserVoice

Ideas

What features would you like to see?

All of the feedback that you share in these forums will be monitored and reviewed by the Microsoft engineering teams responsible for building System Center Configuration Manager, though we can’t promise to reply to all posts.

Please do not use UserVoice to report product bugs or for assisted support.
If you believe you have found a product bug, please send us a bug report through the Configuration Manager Console (1806 and newer). To do this, press the 🙂 button in the top right corner and choose “Send a Frown”. For more details, see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sccm/core/understand/find-help.

Standard Disclaimer – our lawyers made us put this here ;-)
We have partnered with UserVoice, a third-party service, so you can give us feedback. Please note that the System Center Configuration Manager feedback site is moderated and is a voluntary participation-based project. Please send only feature suggestions and ideas to improve Microsoft Configuration Manager. Do not send any novel or patentable ideas, copyrighted materials, samples or demos. Your use of the portal and your submission is subject to the UserVoice Terms of Service & Privacy Policy, including the license terms.

How can we improve Configuration Manager?

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.

You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.

To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".

Tell us your idea

(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

Allow us to revoke an approval request. If an uninstall command is provided in the deployment type, it should optionally run the uninstall command. Also possibly integrate this with software metering.

Give us the ability to disable "optional software" for new software notifications. If a user requests some software, then uninstalls it, it will show up as available optional software. The problem is that it will pop up a notification every time the user logs in. This is annoying our users especially since they uninstalled it for a reason. So either make it intelligent enough to remove the notification after uninstall, only advertise it for a week or two, or give us the ability to control that user experience.

Allow us to revoke an approval request. If an uninstall command is provided in the deployment type, it should optionally run the uninstall command. Also possibly integrate this with software metering.

Give us the ability to disable "optional software" for new software notifications. If a user requests some software, then uninstalls it, it will show up as available optional software. The problem is that it will pop up a notification every time the user logs in. This is annoying our users especially since they uninstalled it for a reason. So either make it intelligent enough to remove the notification after…

I recently ran into an issue with an MSI that we have deployed which required access to its installation source during a patching operation, and discovered these two problems. We worked around the issue by pinning the content in the ccmcache.

On the application deployment properties, SCCM can automatically update the source location windows installer uses for a detected MSI product code. However, it appears that windows installer is unable to use https source locations, only http.

Another issue I have seen is that the windows installer source list gets appended (not replaced). As a client roams between content boundaries, it accumulates various DP's source locations. If windows installer requires the source location (say during a repair operation), it could potentially fetch content from a sub-optimal location.

I recently ran into an issue with an MSI that we have deployed which required access to its installation source during a patching operation, and discovered these two problems. We worked around the issue by pinning the content in the ccmcache.

On the application deployment properties, SCCM can automatically update the source location windows installer uses for a detected MSI product code. However, it appears that windows installer is unable to use https source locations, only http.

Another issue I have seen is that the windows installer source list gets appended (not replaced). As a client roams between content boundaries,…

Placing the clients version and status in Software center would help to see if the client is having issues (Active or Inactive) and also see if the version needs updating instead of going into the applet in control panel.

Now we have only two parameters for Restart behavior: time to show the first warning and time to show the 'always on top' notification. It would be better if we can configure some user-controllable options. E.g. possibility to postpone a reboot.

Currently, applications in the admin console are uniquely identified by the Name field only, forcing the use of custom names for each version of an application.

I propose that an application entry should be uniquely identified by multiple fields (Manufacturer, Name, and Version). This way, I can present the end user with a consistent name for an application without having to constantly revise support documentation.

Example: Adobe Flash Player
I cannot have multiple entries for something called 'Flash Player', so I've been adding some versioning information to the Name field so it becomes unique as I deploy different versions through testing. By having multiple fields combined to identify it as a unique record, I am able to just call it 'Flash Player' in Software Center and let the version field uniquely identify multiple instances.

Related connect feedback found: 1498781

Currently, applications in the admin console are uniquely identified by the Name field only, forcing the use of custom names for each version of an application.

I propose that an application entry should be uniquely identified by multiple fields (Manufacturer, Name, and Version). This way, I can present the end user with a consistent name for an application without having to constantly revise support documentation.

Example: Adobe Flash Player
I cannot have multiple entries for something called 'Flash Player', so I've been adding some versioning information to the Name field so it becomes unique as I deploy different versions through…

It would be good if we have Graphical Icon status indication of Machines present on SCCM console i.e user login icon on machine which will turns green if a user is login & will display the login user name also , turns grey if machine is shutdown .
Also we should be able to deploy application on single machine also by drag & drop rather to do this by adding machine in collection & it should show the live status i.e In progress , Failed , Completed on that screen only rather to go to Monitoring tab & check status which has some delay . All of these is something which is present in Altiris Deployment Server (DS) & that's why our IT Service desk says SCCM lacks on these feature & must have it.

It would be good if we have Graphical Icon status indication of Machines present on SCCM console i.e user login icon on machine which will turns green if a user is login & will display the login user name also , turns grey if machine is shutdown .
Also we should be able to deploy application on single machine also by drag & drop rather to do this by adding machine in collection & it should show the live status i.e In progress , Failed , Completed on that screen only rather to go to Monitoring tab & check status…

Yes we do this today with SCOrch and other tools, however, the self service aspect of the catalog has so much untapped potential in the product. Putting the management and automation into the web interface for administrators would make this so much easier/beneficial for the masses.

if i have multiple dependencies for an application(all different apps), there is no way to control the order in which they should be installed unless you create dependency group name with priority. In this example,i have no way to control the order of installation since they are all different category apps and cannot use dependency group.

A workflow system (tab) for handling application/package errors (i.e non-zero return codes) for example; I should be able to config a setting of if the package/program gets an exit code of 1025 then handle it particular way or reboot try again 1 more time.

Suggested options could be
- Reboot device, try again 1 more time (great for 1025 errors)
- E-mail support team X on X failure
- Execute package 'PackageID/ProgramID' then attempt 1 more time (great for clean up scripts)
- Add to collection X on Y error.

Some (MSI) applications (e.g. usually CAD software) will be configured via HKCU Registry hive, files in %appdata% or another files in user paths.
It would be nice if a new user logs on (e.g. after OSD), these settings takes place automatically.
This can already be done rudimentary via Active Setup, but not really comfortable (e.g. you have to do logging by yourself, no out of the box feedback in case of success / errors, etc).
Please integrate Active Setup or a new fully solution for that cases as a GUI / Wizard in Application Management.

It would be good to have the following options in Application Tab on SCCM console:

1) The "Size" tab as we have now for PACKAGES to check the actual size of it.
2) The “Application ID” as we have for PACKAGES (packageID). Although we do see it under deployment tab but only if we deploy application to any collection. In case we only need to check the distribution status with any deployment being done, we have to go to content status tab and search with application name. This could be made handy as is done for Packages section.

It would be nice if an Software Package is required in the Future to set a specific Time when a Software CAN be automatically installed ! E.g. : Deployment availability: NOW
Requirement Date of a Software Install: 5 Weeks
Recommended Date of a Software Install: 2 Weeks

If a Client Shutdown after the Date of Recommend Date of Software Deployment is reached SCCM have to install the Application/Update.

Lot of Customers doesn't like to reboot the PC if there is an important security issue or Preparing for a new Software Upgrade.

Allow us to choose where to publish applications for the users. Alot of applications are still installed in Task sequences and it would be great to be able to deploy these and present them in the application catalog.

The users are getting confused when some applications are in software center and some in application catalog. Please let us have a one stop shop for this.

I would like to see the option to have one deployment type as a base for all our customers and then add customer specific settings an other deployment type.

Example 1:
Adobe Acrobat XI Pro would be the default deployment type and the MST-transform file, containing user customizations and license information, downloaded based on OU-Membership or some other variable and applied during the installation.
Example 2:
Office 2013 ProPlus as the default deployment type and the “MSP”, containing user customizations and license information, downloaded based on OU-Membership or some other variable.

We would like to see a feature whereby the approvals workflow for applications can be handed off to an external system. For applications which require an approval or license acquisition workflow, capture the userID of the requestor and allow for some user-defined form fields to be shown to the end user.

For example, let's say my end users wants Visio but this requires a puchase of an individual license before they can install it. The app portal should allow capture of some user-defined fields (office location, fiscal approver, etc.) and we should be able to pass this to an external procurement system. The external system can then notify SCCM if an application is approver or denied.

SCCM does not need to know or care about the approvals workflow. It simply needs to pass some data to an external system, wait for the response, and then deploy accordingly once the approval is provided.

We would like to see a feature whereby the approvals workflow for applications can be handed off to an external system. For applications which require an approval or license acquisition workflow, capture the userID of the requestor and allow for some user-defined form fields to be shown to the end user.

For example, let's say my end users wants Visio but this requires a puchase of an individual license before they can install it. The app portal should allow capture of some user-defined fields (office location, fiscal approver, etc.) and we should be able to pass this to an external…